Who are we? What do we do? How do we engage with others? U.S.-based Private Philanthropic Foundations and Their Stakeholder Relationships Through the Lens of Identity

ABSTRACT In the face of the ever-increasing complexities and the continuing failures that characterize efforts to achieve global development goals, the global development community has adopted a vision that links progress against the global development agenda (the Sustainable Development Goals) to an “all hands on deck” collective action approach requiring the alignment of the efforts of all stakeholders in the development ecosystem. Increasingly perceived as critical development stakeholders, private foundations are seen as essential contributors to the success of this vision. However, patterns of stakeholder engagement indicate that private foundations’ behaviors do not meet expectations, and there is a pervasive perception that these organizations are reticent to integrate themselves into this collective action approach. The development community has called for a better understanding of the “priorities, practices and partnering behaviors” of private foundations, and a deeper understanding of the barriers that limit their stakeholder engagement. In order to enhance this understanding, this dissertation draws on extant work in organizational identity, including Brickson’s Organizational Identity Orientation (OIO) framework (2007), to examine the influence of organizational identity on strategic decision-making of private philanthropic foundations with respect to their engagement in stakeholder relationships. The data for this qualitative study are comprised of semi-structured interviews with leaders of twenty-six U.S.-based private foundations engaged in global development and primary documents from these foundations. Applying the OIO model to the study group, findings suggest that private foundations, like other organization types, exhibit patterns of self-conceptualization and behaviors that align with the individualistic, relational, and collectivist orientations defined in Brickson’s framework. It argues that these patterns shape strategic decisions regarding relationships with external stakeholders, creating both facilitators and barriers to these relationships. This dissertation further builds upon and extends Scherer’s foundation identity typology (2017), examining patterns of organizational identity attributes associated within each orientation type, as well as comparing them across the three types. Considering four core identity attribute elements (values/priorities, strategic approaches, operational context/structures, and institutional practices/processes), findings suggest distinctive variations between the three orientation types with respect to the element of values/priorities, but notable similarity across all three orientations with respect to the other three elements. The data also revealed internal friction between the values/priorities of foundations, which aspire to pursue innovative and progressive approaches to development work (i.e., exercising the risk-taking capacity often attributed to private foundations), and the constraints they face as a result of risk-limiting functions associated with traditional internal organizational structures and practices, such as leadership structures, and legal and financial operations. These frictions also reveal themselves in other aspects of foundations’ self-conceptualization and behaviors. The data revealed interesting findings with respect to foundations’ interpretations of widely-referenced concepts in global development, including “trust” or “trust-based philanthropy” and “locally led development”. These concepts, both of which are often used to infer power-shifting in favor of local institutions or grantees, were referenced by leaders in ways that limited the power-shifting implications of the terms. This seeming reticence on the part of private foundations to cede power to local institutions or grantees is often at odds with their expressions of support for the increasing international trends towards locally led development. The data also revealed that many foundations are wrestling with internal dilemmas regarding the reconciliation of historical actions on the part of foundations engaged in global operations, and current standards of behavior to which they aspire to hold themselves and which are increasingly expected of donors in the global development system. Finally, the volatility of the international environment, as well as rapid changes in the overall structure of philanthropy, create anxiety for foundations, which recognize the challenges that their organizations may face in the future with respect to adaptability.